robotwarsfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Annihilator
Behold the magic of settling things without revert wars Here we go. I personally agree with TG's new layout. When I first read this wiki, I hadn't even heard of Extreme. I didn't know who had won each annihilator, and though each round states which robot is eliminated, it doesn't tell readers who came second. I had to tick off each robot who entered to discover who came second. It was both frustrating and time-consuming. However, the final round should not have the word eliminated, it should be something like defeated. GutripperSpeak 07:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC) :Yes, but it blatantly goes against what was set-up for the wording. The deal was that we use the word "robot won" for one-on-one battles and "robot eliminated" if there were more than two robots going through. If we were to change that, we'd have to change practically everything else. :A second point, it doesn't matter if you've never heard of Robot Wars Extreme. The idea is there are people here who will have heard of it. :We guys are NOT "Komodo Lover" (I'll explain later), we are real contributors.CBFan 07:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Fine, then I'll start changing everything. If thats what it takes for article to make sense, I'll do it a thousand times. Also, Wikias are meant to be informative. The current layout is not at all informative. GutripperSpeak 07:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC) :Granted, but that is why we are creating a page for every show in Robot Wars, eventually. This is meerly just the "backbone", the ribs will be added at a later date. CBFan 07:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC) But all I'm saying is that we state who came second in an obvious place. GutripperSpeak 08:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC) :I understand that, but it should be fairly obvious who won anyway...more to the point, it's consistant with all the other articles. CBFan 09:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Frankly, it would be consistent with the others if you hadn't changed them all back. I changed it for the reasons that Gutripper stated above, it makes it less clear about who came in second. You said its easier to figure out, but people shouldn't have to figure things out; the information should be right there. It would be, if you didn't keep removing it. Toon Ganondorf (t ''' 09:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC) :The information is there, it's not rocket science and it's not as if the robots competing are at the top of the page and the results are at the bottom. And remember what I said, this is only the backbone. It'll be made clearer once we create the article itself. :And no, it wouldn't have been consistant. Look around the other pages, look at all the other one-on-one battles. You don't see them saying "Raging Reality lost, Winner: Razer", do you? And before you say anything about "We're just talking about the annihilators", it still isn't consistant because you didn't do all of them. CBFan 09:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC) It is very different in one on ones, if both robots are clearly stated before. It I said a hypothetical annihilator; Competing robots: Edgehog, Kronic 2, Diotoir, Medusa 2000, Tartarus and Crushtacean. *Round 1: '''Tartarus eliminated *Round 2: Edgehog eliminated *Round 3: Medusa 2000 eliminated *Round 4: Diotoir eliminated *Round 5: Kronic 2 won Honestly tell me how long it takes for you to deduce who comes second. Now compare to this one. Competing robots: V-Max, Judge Shred, Tiberius, 13 Black, Lightning, Tetanus Booster *Round 1: Tetanus Booster eliminated *Round 2: Judge Shred eliminated *Round 3: Tiberius eliminated *Round 4: 13 Black eliminated *Round 5: V-Max lost :Winner: Lightning Now honestly tell me which is more informative for you, having never read about the annihilators before. It is far different to Raging Reality and Razer, because both names are just there to be read. With annihilators, it is harder to keep track of who is in each round. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 09:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC) :First point, it took me literally two seconds to figure out that Crushtacean finished second in the annihilator. Whilst in comparison, the second one just comes out as messy. OBVIOUSLY the winner would be Lightning. If you want my honest opinion, they are both as informative as each other, but the second one looks more messy. As I said before, we are NOT "Komodo Lover", we are proper, respectable editors. Can't you at least wait until we write their respective articles? :Furthermore, you have still completely ignored my question as to why you weren't consistant with your editing. CBFan 10:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC) ::OK, either explain this Komodo lover thing, or stop making references to it. Its getting annoying. ::Secondly, of course you were going to say that, but I was talking more to Gutripper, RA2 and Christophee. It's fairly obvious that you and I aren't going to come to an agreement. Let's see what the others say. Majority will decide this matter, i think. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' :::OK then, first of all, I believe it was Christophee who wrote the original annihilator sections, thereby, it's his choice to have it like that. I don't see why you're making a big deal of this when you're not doing all of the annihilators that way, but we can also easily state what happened in the respective articles themselves. :::Secondly, Komodo Lover was a Wikipedian sockpuppet, who continually made disruptive edits. Often his excuse would be "We have to do it like this or other people will get confused", even though it was blatantly obvious. This is exactly the same. CBFan 10:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC) It is really not that hard to add a few extra lines. I agree with TG. That makes 2 to 1 (maybe 2, depending on whether Christophee agrees like you say), Let's call on RA2, Tyciol and Solar Dragon to decide. 'GutripperSpeak 20:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC) :But why the annihilators? Why do they have to be different to every other article? :More to the point, why can't we have both? We can use the method we have already for the general page, and then use your suggestion for the main page. :And Toon Ganondorf, you still haven't answered my question. Why were you so insistant, yet didn't edit all of them? CBFan 20:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Because in all reality, the setup for the general page.....well it sucks. Thats why I changed it. And if I missed one, then it wasn't intentional. Toon Ganondorf (t ' 20:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC) :Well, I'm sorry Toon Ganondorf, but that's how Christophee wrote it. I even double checked earlier, and it is his creation. You'll probably have to speak with him about it for the best answer. CBFan 20:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC) H's always said that he's open to change. We all should be. Wikias are a team effort, not a dictatorship. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ''' 20:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Actually, I wish to propose a third option...this is actually one I used back when I watched the annihilators and wrote all the results down. What I did was, literally, a 6th to 1st usage. See how this sounds... Competing Robots: Scorpion, Mute, Hydra, R.O.C.S., Thor, Mega Morg. *Sixth: '''Mega Morg *Fifth: Hydra *Fourth: R.O.C.S. *Third: Thor *Runner-up: Scorpion *Winner: Mute There, there's no doubt behind either way. CBFan 21:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC) I like mine, because its so similar to what we already have. However, yours is good too. We'll see how it boils down. Good day to you all. Toon Ganondorf (t ''' 21:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC) :Granted, but I was thinking maybe annihilators need their own specific set-up, because they are so different from one-on-one matches (Storm 2 vs Razer: '''Storm 2 won) or melees (Firestorm vs Bolt From The Blue vs Tornado: Bolt From The Blue eliminated) CBFan 21:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC) * For me, option 3 (6th, 5th, 4th, etc) is the most visually appealing. When I imagine it from the point of view of someone who doesn't have every battle committed to memory, this way just makes it a whole lot nicer. That's my official vote on the matter. RA2 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC) I have thought about this before actually, and I think it would be a good idea to change it to make it clearer which robot finished second. As for whose method we should use, I actually think that TG's method looks better but they both look fine and I'm happy to go with the majority. There is another thing I would like to mention to though. As things stand, we list all five rounds of an annihilator even in situations when there weren't really five rounds because certain robots had to withdraw. As it stands, when a robot had to withdraw we say it was eliminated in that round and the competition 'skipped' to the next round. However, when a robot had to withdraw it really just meant that there were two fewer robots in the next round and the annihilator would be one round shorter. Do you think we should change this or not? Christophee 00:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC) As it stands, TG's is the most in favour. If no one else has an objection by the end of today (its 11:30 am over here), I will change it to the most popular. GutripperSpeak 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC) :Wait a second, think about it....Christophee raises a valid point. Both of the battles that use "Round" meerly assumes that there were five rounds of annihilation, even when there weren't. I'm not deliberately trying to advertise my method, but my option does prevent that issue. CBFan 06:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC) That's a good point actually. Come to think of it, your method is probably better for that very reason. I think we should keep the notes that state when a robot dropped out for technichal reasons though. For example, the second annihilator in Extreme Series 1 would look something like this: *Sixth: Fighting Torque *Fifth: Napalm 2 :Note: Napalm 2 withdrew from the competition as it was not fully mobile and had suffered serious damage from Round 1. *Fourth: The Steel Avenger *Third: Panic Attack :Note: Panic Attack had suffered terrible damage and the team were unable to fix it even within a "filler" battle, so it was forced to withdraw. *Runner-up: Spirit of Knightmare *Winner: Disc-O-Inferno Maybe the notes don't have to be quite so long but that's roughly how it would look. What do you think? Christophee 21:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC) :Oh, and another issue...it's only 6:51 am over here. How about a little fairnessy? CBFan 06:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC) As for your concern regarding dropped out robots, I think a hypothetical round is just as good. GutripperSpeak 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Yeah that's good. 21:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)